Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 2 of 2
The tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 119(2)(b) is not maintainable before the ITAT, as Section 253(1) does not include such orders. The appeal was dismissed for being non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in developing and building housing projects and was eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The Tribunal followed various co-ordinate bench decisions with similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the exact limb of the section under which the penalty was proposed. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The tribunal held that the PCIT had the jurisdiction to revise the assessment order concerning the disallowance of interest, as it was a separate issue from the principal loan addition. The issue of commission payment was remanded back to the PCIT for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting 'sufficient cause'. For the disallowance of Wages & Bardana Expenditure, the Tribunal upheld the AO's rejection of books under Section 145(3) but directed the AO to compute income based on the preceding year's Net Profit rate of 1.24% on sales, restricting the addition to Rs. 1,00,887/-. For the addition of unexplained capital, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to consider additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be similar to those in previously decided cases by the ITAT Indore Bench, such as M. Vardhman Builders and Developers vs. ITO, DCIT vs. SMR Builders (P.) Ltd., and Raghava Estates vs. Dy.CIT. In these cited cases, the Tribunal had allowed deduction under Section 80-IB(10) even when the assessee entered into separate agreements for land sale and construction, or sold land with semi-finished structures and then undertook completion. The Tribunal noted that the revenue's arguments in those cases, that the assessee acted as a contractor, were rejected. The Tribunal also considered the decision in Agarwal Builders, which followed Gujarat High Court's decision in Radhe Developers. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was engaged in developing and building housing projects as per the scheme of Section 80-IB(10). Consequently, the AO was directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee. The grounds challenging interest under Section 234B were not adjudicated as they were not pleaded during the hearing.
The Tribunal adjudicated on each addition. For the addition of Rs. 1,18,51,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, the Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that the AO rejected books based solely on statistical analysis without finding defects. The judgment excerpt indicates this issue was to be adjudicated further, but the final outcome for this specific addition is not fully detailed in the provided text, only that the appeal was 'partly allowed for statistical purpose'. For the addition of Rs. 32,43,000/- on account of unexplained loans, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the principle of natural justice and the revenue's suggestion for remand. This issue was allowed for statistical purpose. For the addition of Rs. 11,80,510/- on account of unexplained capital introduction, the Tribunal accepted the additional evidence (Account Confirmation and cheque copy from M/s Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.) and the revenue's submission that it was a genuine receipt, thus deleting the addition. The ratio for this part is that contemporary documentary evidence, even if filed belatedly, can establish the genuineness of a transaction, especially when supported by the revenue's concession.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly inferred a circular transaction by connecting the purchase and gift transactions. Since the cash book, where the deposits were recorded, was not rejected by the AO, and the transactions were supported by documentary evidence including VAT filings and gift deeds, the addition made under Section 69 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly inferred a circular transaction by connecting the purchase and gift transactions. Since the cash book, where the deposits were recorded, was not rejected by the AO, and the transactions were supported by documentary evidence including VAT filings and gift deeds, the addition made under Section 69 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made specific inquiries on all issues raised by the PCIT, and the assessee had provided detailed replies and documents. Therefore, the PCIT's conclusion of insufficient inquiry was incorrect.
The ITAT condoned the delay. It deleted the addition under Section 69, finding the property and investment belonged to the assessee's wife. The addition under Section 68 was also deleted, accepting the assessee's explanation of business receipts during peak Diwali season. The ground for disallowance under Chapter VI-A/Section 80C was dismissed as non-pleaded.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment proceedings, noting that the assessee had not informed the tax authorities of its dissolution, thus making the Mahagun Realtors precedent applicable over Maruti Suzuki. However, recognizing the principle against double taxation, the Tribunal remanded the quantum addition issue (ITA 709) back to the AO for verification that the transactions were indeed recorded in the individual proprietor's books, with a direction to delete the addition if verified. The penalty appeal (ITA 710) was also remanded for fresh adjudication, being consequential to the quantum issue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the late filing due to the circumstances of the deceased assessee and the legal representative's efforts. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without adhering to the mandate of Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as the issue was already pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO had made due inquiries and consciously taken a view, which the PCIT could not simply override with his own opinion.
Given the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee did not wish to pursue the current appeal and requested its withdrawal. The departmental representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal and consequently dismissed it as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the addition of Rs. 8,40,000/-, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for Rs. 4,00,000/- from agricultural income (old savings) and Rs. 40,000/- from cash sales. The Tribunal noted that the cash sales of Rs. 41,548/- were already assessed as disclosed income, and taxing the deposit made from these proceeds would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition was reduced by Rs. 4,40,000/-, and Rs. 4,00,000/- was upheld as unexplained. The Tribunal cautioned that this specific finding on cash sales should not be treated as a precedent. 2. Regarding the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- for bogus creditors, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the AO had mistakenly treated "sundry debtors" as "sundry creditors." The revenue also accepted this submission. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- was deleted. The assessee succeeded on this ground.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the current appeal, stating that the assessee no longer wishes to pursue it due to the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee is free to apply for recall if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A at Rs. 1,40,28,010/- needed to be restricted. The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was substituted by the IT (Fourteenth Amendment) Rule, 2016, w.e.f. 02.06.2016, which introduced a proviso stating that the amount referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 8D shall not exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal considered this proviso to be curative in nature and applicable retrospectively to AY 2015-16. Therefore, the disallowance could not exceed the total expenditure of Rs. 4,47,278/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to modify the assessment order and restrict the disallowance to Rs. 4,47,278/-, which would include the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 4,01,500/- made by the assessee. The excess disallowance was to be deleted. The issue regarding the Rs. 41,293/- expenditure was implicitly addressed by capping the total disallowance to Rs. 4,47,278/-, which encompasses all expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the 166-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging it was due to a reasonable cause. As the assessee had applied under the "Vivad Se Vishwas" Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the current appeal, and the departmental representative did not object, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal. It also clarified that the assessee is free to file an application to recall the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the impugned addition was made based on a document impounded from the assessee's mobile during a survey. The same document was used to make an addition in the hands of the counterparty, M/s Pramada. However, the addition in the hands of M/s Pramada was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the ITAT. The Tribunal agreed with this finding, observing that when the document was confronted to the assessee during the survey, the assessee provided an explanation that the document contained calculations for a decision that could not materialize due to technical issues with the land and delays in permissions. Since the addition in the hands of the counterparty was deleted and upheld by the ITAT, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made in the assessee's hands was not sustainable. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted the addition and allowed the assessee's appeal. Other pleadings were not required to be examined as the appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment proceedings, noting that the assessee had not informed the tax authorities of its dissolution, thus making the Mahagun Realtors precedent applicable over Maruti Suzuki. However, recognizing the principle against double taxation, the Tribunal remanded the quantum addition issue (ITA 709) back to the AO for verification that the transactions were indeed recorded in the individual proprietor's books, with a direction to delete the addition if verified. The penalty appeal (ITA 710) was also remanded for fresh adjudication, being consequential to the quantum issue.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 69 of the Act. The assessee's explanation that the deposits were out of cash sales was not doubted, and the issue was the eligibility to accept SBNs, not the source of funds.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. For Section 145A, it relied on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case, confirming no impact on net profit. For Section 14A, it found that since the opening and closing balances of investments were Nil, the average value of investment under Rule 8D should be Nil, thus rendering the disallowance by the AO unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in the first appeal warranted condonation and the assessee was willing to provide further explanations. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to submit representations. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order without being influenced by its previous decision.
The Tribunal, with the agreement of both parties, remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to make representations, consider all submissions, examine the time-barring objection, and pass a fresh order in accordance with Section 250(6), potentially after seeking a report from the AO.
The tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, contingent on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The AO is directed to provide adequate hearing opportunities, uninfluenced by the earlier order, and the assessee must ensure proper participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the medical reasons, and considering Section 253(5) of the Act and Supreme Court's pronouncements. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on merits of the addition under Section 69A, providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and fair play, remanded both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by previous orders. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that interest and dividend income earned from District Credit Co-operative Banks (DCCBs) are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as DCCBs are considered co-operative societies. Income from mandatory reserve funds is also eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal found that the two sources of investment, a loan of Rs. 80,00,000/- from the assessee's brother and Rs. 23,00,000/- paid by his wife, were sufficiently explained. The identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the brother's loan were established, and the wife's payments for the jointly owned property were also verified. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 70,13,980/- made under Section 69.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and fair play, remanded both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order uninfluenced by previous orders. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation and avoid unnecessary adjournments.